" And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. "
acts 2
the context just beyond Pentecost, when the holy Spirit took up dwelling individually in Jesus' followers, just as Jesus had promised when he was about to face his final days - ' i will not leave you comfortless, i will come to you '
he did come, in the person of another Comforter
`|`
a few days ago a friend asked me my opinion on a piece written by a wellknown christian commentator and preacher
please read it; it's short
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-should-christians-think-about-socialism
`|`
the pic in the piece is bernie sanders
there are a couple problems from my perspective
bernie s does not promulgate socialism: what he speaks of is capitalistic socialism, which is obviously different, or he wouldn't have renamed it
and i daresay Mr sanders is not decrying the private ownership
he is crying-out against the blatantly unjust circumstance of the 1%, with the rapidly diminishing middle class and the rapid growth of poverty in the richest nation ever to exist ..
not that i'm a bernie s fan, just pointing that out
and, unlike the piper's take, mr sanders is not advocating for the state ownership of everything ..
`|`
but the more pertinent issue arising out of the article by the famous gentleman is the religious rather than the political
a point made was that people obviously had personal property in order to be able to give it away ..
true ..
however that comment in defense of capitalism and ownership rights does not reflect the scripture passage quoted
the obvious outtake is that they sold what they owned and gave it to the church to be used for the benefit of the group as a whole
the church became the manager of the pool of wealth
and everyone had their needs met
that's quite different from what the piper piped, quote:
" .. all of the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, assumes both the legitimacy — and, I think, the necessity — of personal ownership. " ..
secondly, while aditting that noone in the church should go hungry, the blatant fact is that they do .. and houseless and begging for clothes
if for some reason you beleive that christians aren't on the street, i advise you to think again ..
so the church is hardly accomplishing that task
thirdly, we in the church have this habit of restricting our responsibility to the 'members' of christianity
so that, while the good gentleman didn't address the issue, the massive migration of syrians would, i imaging, not suit his religious agenda for north america .. unless he vetted the lot for religious affiliation ..
the glaring problem with that think is that Jesus specifically answered that issue when asked by a smartypants " and who is my neighbour ? " (referred to in last blog post)Jesus' response was to tell a story in which religion was blasted and lovingkindness exalted in the persons of a priest a levite and a dreaded samaritan
it was the strange outcast samaritan who rescued and cared for the (presumably) jewish man who fell among thieves, while the religious bigots crossed the street to pass by the beaten man ..
= your neighbour is anyone you meet anywhere anytime
as in any other human
fourthly, the author points to 2Corinthians 8,9 as bolster for private ownership
but Paul was telling the predominantly gentile (non-jew) church in corinth that they should be sharing with the church in jerusalem who were undergoing famine
this was 2 distinct segments, 2 churches in different locations
in the beginning of that passage he references the macedonian church and their giving, as an example, and he points out that they were poor and undergoing tribulation oof some sort, yet they gave out of their poverty to the same jerusalem church, and in addition - more significantly - gave of themselves, that is, they told God that what they had was God's, and relinquished their ownership to the Lord
that, again, is a very different take on the scriptures the writes refers to, and he's using it to defend private ownership and mine-mine, in my opinion
" I am testing how genuine your love is by comparing it with the eagerness of the other churches.
You know the generous grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make you rich. "
2Cor 8:8,9
well then .. seems that Jesus himself set the example
the Word of God, who was in the beginning with God, and was God, gave up Godhood to become human for our sakes
he impoverished himself
what on Earth could that exemplify in Paul's argument, i wonder
" I don’t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. " 8:13
share, so that everyone has what they need
that's the simple message
no ?
" Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. As the Scriptures say,
' Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough. ' "
8:14,15
it's true, they had private property .. but seems to me they didn't consider it theirs
like we do
..
i'll stop
i could go on
the message is clear, in my humbled opinion
`|`
one last thing
of all the scriptures and doctrines we have that speak to this, Jesus stands-out as the predominant exemplar, as noted
but moreso in this respect: he not only relinquished his godhood for humanity, but even as a human, he was a servant
now, we can ' dance all around robin hood's barn ' on this, but the fact is that Jesus was a person without private means, without a home (and if he had one, hardly went there (that we know of from the scriptures)), shucked corn in the fields for food, took coinage from the mouth of fish to pay taxes, slept outdoors often, etc.
we also know that there were some better-off disciples who used 'their' money to support him and the cause ..
furthermore, he refused to ask the Father for help by sending heavenly forces when his life was about to be taken
`|`
so, ya
it isn't so much private property that i have a problem with, it's the idea that it's mine
`|`
i have a problem from the gitgo when i hear someone defending capitalism at the cost of the poor, the fatherless, the widow, the homeless, the emigrant ..
seems to me i'd rather err on the other side of that argument, sir
for followers of Jesus, the weight should always .. always .. land on the side of the downtrodden, the unfortunate, the alien, the prisoner, the margined, the outcast
`|`
when we are unwilling to forego the social norms with which we have been indoctrinated for the sake of Jesus and the kingdom ..
hmmmmmm ..
then i have to question what sort of disciples we are ..
those men left their very families to follow Jesus
left their livelihoods
their homes
..
question is this .. if Jesus was to appear today and require that of me .. . .
would i ?
No comments:
Post a Comment